http://civicaccess.416.s1.nabble.com/The-case-for-context-in-defining-Open-Data-tp5474p5480.html
> To open data means to apply any combination of open principles to achieve one’s goals in the context of a particular situation.
is extremely vague. With this definition, groups can argue indefinitely about whether a dataset is open or not.
The OKF definition covers a set of desirable qualities that we want to see in government-published data, and strikes a balance between what we want and what we are likely to get. It would have been possible to add other conditions, e.g. asking that the data's lineage be included in any release, which is very important to many data users. It wasn't included, because that condition would make it very hard for most data publishers to call any of their data "open". Open data needs to be seen as an achievable goal for data publishers to subscribe to the idea.
The OKF definition also strives to list only those qualities that a dataset *must* have to be open data - the minimal, necessary and sufficient conditions for data to be "open". It could have included a long list of desirable but optional qualities, but that would have made communications work around open data much harder. The current, simple definition is one of the reasons so many politicians "get it".
The direction of the proposed definition suggests that there are no necessary and sufficient conditions - that it all depends on context. This makes the open data lobby much weaker, because data publishers will always be able to argue "we were able to achieve our goals in our context, so it the data must be open, by definition." Lobbying benefits from clear, precise definitions.
The current phrasing also suffers from the fact that I can use *no* open principles, but if I achieve my goal in my context, then I've "opened data". Anyway, I don't want to start a tangent about refining the definitions. There are plenty of problems to solve in the world of open data. The solution is not to redefine open data, however. As Glen suggests, if you need a working definition for your concepts, you need to come up with a new name.
> Thanks for your post, Ted, but I'm not sure I recognize what the problem is it's trying to address.
>
> The post seems to rely on the implied notion that "open data" should refer only to good, happy things. Which I don't agree with. We've seen "open" as adjective used in endless warm, fuzzy, and fundamentally meaningless political uses; for "open data", I think we're far better off with the current more-or-less objective consensus definition.
>
> So without getting into specific examples, it's in no way contradictory or problematic in terms of definitions for an open data release to have negative effects. Nobody with any kind of voice is claiming that all government data should be open.
>
> > When using or building an open data site or app ask yourself:
> > who is this built for, to do what with, and why? Please don’t
> > only ask: is the data open enough?
>
> Well, of course -- I don't think anyone is asking only that. Even in this community, where we know how tricky and important licenses are and so pay particular attention to them, I've never heard the argument that openness should be our sole concern. This feels a little strawmanny.
>
> > To open data means to apply any combination of open principles
> > to achieve one’s goals in the context of a particular situation.
>
> At the moment, it doesn't. Thanks to years of effort by a global community, there's a consensus definition as to what "to open data" means (opendefinition.org). The above definition -- which is so broad as to apply to virtually anything -- would lose us precision and hurt interoperability between open data projects (one of the essential goals of the movement), on the way to making "open data", whether as verb or noun, an empty feel-good term.
>
> I think you'll find open-data advocates very ready to agree that open data is a tool that isn't the solution to every problem, that some data should not be open, and that it's possible and potentially desirable for a business model to embrace collaboration and openness without actually opening data. Far better to acknowledge this than try to make "open data" refer to everything good and nothing bad.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Glen Newton <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> Open Data has a fairly well accepted definition.
>
> If you want to define something else (which may be useful in a related
> context), come up with another name for it. Otherwise you are just
> muddying the waters.
>
> I was also not convinced by your initial arguments (Weenusk, others).
> Almost every data release has implications, and needs to be dealt
> with. But do not conflate these issues with Open Data. The very same
> data could be released with a restrictive license, and have the same -
> in the case of your claims - negative impacts. For example, in the
> Weenusk case, the data could be released in with a no-reuse, no
> re-distribution license (so clearly not Open Data) and have the exact
> same impact.
> Do not conflate the content of the data (and the implications of
> sharing the knowledge/information contained in the data) with its
> license.
>
> -Glen
>
> -glen
>
> -Glen
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Ted Strauss <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > In honor of Open Data Day, I wrote this blog post:
> > The case for context in defining Open Data
> >
> > Hope to hear your comments.
> >
> > It's the first post on Strength in Numbers, the official
> > blog of Trudat, with posts by Naomi Kincler and myself.
> > Trudat is a web application for collaborative data discovery.
> > It will be launching later this year.
> >
> > --
> > Ted Strauss
> > Co-founder of Trudat.co
> >
> > I'm organizing Open Data Exchange in Montreal, April 6, 2013
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> >
[hidden email]
> >
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss>
>
>
> --
> -
>
http://zzzoot.blogspot.com/> -
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>
[hidden email]
>
http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss